Table 2.

Characteristics of studies included in green or other spaces comparison

Study ID	Study design	Country	Description of Intervention and comparison	Participants/ Setting	Outcomes reported
Branas 2011 [39]	CBA study	USA	Greening of abandoned vacant lots (involved removing trash and debris, grading the land, planting grass and trees to create a park-like setting, and installing low wooden post-and-rail fences around each lot’s perimeter vs No greening of vacant lots	Vacant lots in urban Pennsylvania	Physical activity Blood pressure
Bohn-Goldbaum 2013 [51]	CBA study	Australia	Upgrade of playgrounds in a park vs Parks not renovated/with similar pre-renovation playgrounds as intervention park	Visitors to parks in lower SE urban neighbourhoods	Physical activity
Cortinez O'Ryan 2017 [45]	CBA study	Chile	Neighbourhood with street closed for play vs control neighbourhood	Children living in selected neighbourhoods	Physical activity
Cohen 2009 [53]	CBA study	USA	Park improvements ( e.g. new or refurbished gymnasiums, field improvements in watering and landscaping; improvements to picnic areas, upgrades to a walking path, and enhancements to a play-ground area..” vs No intervention	Visitors to study parks	Physical activity Park safety
D’Haese 2015 [46]	CBA study	Belgium	Play streets vs no intervention	Children living in streets part of study	Physical activity
Goldsby 2016 [44]	CBA study	USA	Living in close proximity (near) to new inner-city park (within 1.5 miles) vs living farther away from the park (further than 5 miles)	Children under 19 years old living in the intervention area	Body weight and related measures
Kubota 2019 [48]	CBA study	Japan	Construction of a new multipurpose exercise facility including indoor facilities (25 m pool, 170 m walking trail, multi-purpose gym, and group exercise rooms) and outdoor facilities (multi-purpose athletic field, 875 m walking trail, and park), accessible to all residents for a small fee + PA promotion vs No new exercise facility or PA promotion but with routine health promotion program	Adults 30–74 years old living in communities near the new infrastructure	Physical activity
Quigg 2012 [47]	CBA study	New Zealand	Playground upgrade vs no intervention	Children 5–10 years old attending schools in selected communities	Physical activity
Richardson 2020 [50]	CBA study	USA	Public housing development and greenspace landscaping, including changing the streetscape surrounding the developments, providing improved aesthetics (e.g. trees, grass) and walkability (e.g. sidewalks, street crossings) targeted for specific neighborhoods. Renovation of current greenspace, including multiple parks, six outdoor stairwells, and three trails connecting parks vs Fewer investments, exclusively related to housing	Visitors to study parks in low-income urban neighbourhoods	Physical activity Body weight and related measures Neighborhood satisfaction Neighborhood safety
Slater 2016 [54]	CBA study	USA	Park renovation (including replacing old playground equipment and ground surfacing and community engagement) vs no renovations and no community engagement	Adults visiting the selected parks	Physical activity Neighborhood safety
Tester 2009 [52]	CBA study	USA	Park renovations (artificial turf, new fencing, landscaping, lighting, and picnic benches were added. In Park A, permanent soccer goals were installed, and in Park B, a walkway around the field was restored) vs no intervention	Visitors to study parks	Physical activity
Veitch 2018 [43]	Cluster RCT	Australia	Park refurbishment vs no infrastructure changes	Visitor to study parks	Physical activity
Ward Thompson 2019 [49]	CBA study	Scotland	Physical changes to the woodland environment to facilitate access to and use of the woods vs no intervention	Adults living in communities at specific distances classified as in the lowest 30% of deprivation	Physical activity